Jenkins-Moore v. Smith, 108 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). · Go Syfert
Search
Jenkins-Moore v. Smith, 108 A.D.3d 544 (N.Y. App. Div. 2013). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
G Cite
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2014–2020 · …supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence at p. 545 ⚠ not in text
19 citation events (19 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 5 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited "but see" Matter of Leighann W. v. Thomas X.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2016 · signal: but see · confidence high
Lastly, even assuming that hearsay claims of abuse may constitute “competent, material and relevant evidence” in a family offense petition if corroborated (Family Ct Act § 834; but see Matter of Khan-Soleil v Rashad, 108 AD3d 544, 546 [2013]; Matter of Belinda YY. v Lee ZZ., 74 AD3d 1394, 1395 [2010]), there was not “a fair preponderance of the evidence” to establish a family offense without them (Family Ct Act § 832).
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Matter of Godfrey v. Bahadeur
N.Y. App. Div. · 2020 · confidence medium
In child protective proceedings brought pursuant to articles 10 and 10-A of the Family Court Act, there is a statutory hearsay exception for "previous statements made by the child relating to any allegations of abuse or neglect" (Family Ct Act § 1046[a][vi]). "[A]lthough the hearsay exception contained in Family Court Act § 1046(a)(vi) has been applied in the context of custody proceedings commenced pursuant to Family [Court] Act article 6 where the basis of the custody proceeding is founded on neglect or abuse such that the issues are inextricably interwoven," section 1046(a)(vi) is inappli…
discussed Cited "see" Matter of Kristie GG. v. Sean GG.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2018 · signal: see · confidence high
The First and Second Departments have concluded that even though the exception has been applied in custody proceedings under article 6 that are founded on abuse or neglect, because Family Ct Act § 1046 (a) (vi) "is explicitly limited to child protective proceedings under articles 10 and 10-A, [it] has no application to family offense proceedings under article 8" ( Matter of Dhanmatie G. v Zamin B. , 146 AD3d 495, 495 [1st Dept 2017]; see Matter of Khan-Soleil v Rashad , 108 AD3d 544, 546 [2d Dept 2013]).
discussed Cited "see" Zina L. v. Eldred L.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
The allegations in a family offense proceeding must be “supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence” (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Khan-Soleil v Rashad, 108 AD3d 544, 545 [2013]; Matter of Jarrett v Jarrett, 102 AD3d 695 [2013]; Matter of Scanziani v Hairston, 100 AD3d 1007 [2012]; Matter of Daoud v Daoud, 92 AD3d 878 [2012]; Matter of Mamantov v Mamantov, 86 AD3d 540, 541 [2011]).
discussed Cited "see" Zina L. v. Eldred L.
N.Y. App. Div. · 2014 · signal: see · confidence high
The allegations in a family offense proceeding must be “supported by a fair preponderance of the evidence” (Family Ct Act § 832; see Matter of Khan-Soleil v Rashad, 108 AD3d 544, 545 [2013]; Matter of Jarrett v Jarrett, 102 AD3d 695 [2013]; Matter of Scanziani v Hairston, 100 AD3d 1007 [2012]; Matter of Daoud v Daoud, 92 AD3d 878 [2012]; Matter of Mamantov v Mamantov, 86 AD3d 540, 541 [2011]).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In the Matter of Zeena Jenkins-Moore
v.
James Smith
Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York.
Jul 3, 2013.
108 A.D.3d 544
Cited by 2 opinions  |  Published

— In a proceeding pursuant to Family Court Act article 5 to establish paternity and for an award of child support, James Smith appeals from an order of the Family Court, Queens County (Hunt, J.), dated June 15, 2012, which denied his objections to an order of the same court (Fondacaro, S.M.), dated September 27, 2011, which, after a hearing and upon an order of the same court (Hunt, J.) dated March 9, 2011, determining that he is the father of the subject child, awarded child support to the mother in the sum of $253 bi-weekly retroactive to November 28, 2008.

Ordered that the order dated June 15, 2012, is affirmed, without costs or disbursements.

The record supports the Family Court’s determination that the mother established, by clear and convincing evidence, that the appellant is the father of the subject child (see Matter of Lucero S. v Gabriel M., 60 AD3d 860, 861 [2009]; Matter of Commissioner of Social Servs., Suffolk County DSS v Wisloh, 302 AD2d 383 [2003]). Further, contrary to the appellant’s contention, the Family Court properly awarded child support retroactive to November 28, 2008, the date the petition was initially filed (see Family Ct Act § 545; Matter of Shondel J. v Mark D., 18 AD3d 551 [2005], affd 7 NY3d 320 [2006]).

The appellant’s remaining contentions are not properly before this Court, as they were not raised in his objections to the Support Magistrate’s order (see Matter of Feng Lucy Luo v Yang, 89 AD3d 946, 947 [2011]; Matter of Forman v Frost, 67 AD3d 908, 909 [2009]). Rivera, J.P., Dillon, Dickerson and Austin, JJ., concur.